Gathering Views on By-Laws - Organization

Minutes from Restructuring of the Scientific Board of the DDI Alliance working group - subgroup ‘organization’ meeting 2020-03-16 is posted here.

Summary of Comments on By Laws - Organisation

A summary of the views on each specific By Laws are in the row labelled Summary on the table below

Size of SB

Composition should be a specified number, e.g. a maximum of 8 members, with representation from key areas to reflect membership, e.g. at least one from archive, research, NSO, for profit, non-OECD member

The committee should have a size which enables effective work, like 5 or 7. It should be an odd number suitable for voting.

Election or other mechanism for creation

I don’t necessarily agree with the need for a board for the Scientific Board. The leadership of the Board should facilitate the work of the individual groups and the overall working of the scientific work of the alliance. A group of people elected uncontested by a small percentage of eligible voters means little. Having a small group consisting of Chair, Vice-chair, and some volunteers willing to do the support work (set up confluence/jira site, help with presence on DDI site, help frame requests for funding from EB, ensure communication between working groups, etc.) would be useful. Chair/Vice-chair should serve as intermediaries with the EB.

Participation

From what I got from the first discussions, I perceive the major challenges as actual participation to the SB. I would personnally go for a clearer view that the Annual meeting makes decisions on all important areas while the SB prepares these decisions all over the year. In that case, members organizations should have a formal vote in the annual meeting and also nominate (whatever the procedure) members of the SB as a mix of relevant specialists (both in terms of strategy, practical implementation, and users).

Change in By Laws

The Acting Committee of the SB should be elected by the representatives of the members. A discussion point will be what are the representatives, voting member representatives (this is clearly defined) or scientific representatives (not so clear defined). Each elected member of the Acting Committee should have a vote. All possible ex-officio members or standing representatives of groups donâ€™t have votes. The idea is that this committee has a specific role which should be not mixed with other roles (individuals or groups) in the DDI Alliance. The structure of the DDI Alliance should follow the separation of concerns. Otherwise there is always a risk of conflict of interests.

The position of the committee to the SB as whole, the EB, and the working groups should be clearly defined. This should give the frame for a better work in the DDI Alliance.

Acting Committee of the SB:

The mandate of the temporary working group is to provide a proposal for restructuring of the SB. The idea of an Acting Committee of the SB makes very much sense to me.

We need to focus on the composition and size of the proposed AC group. In my view, experts (technical, or from different scientific domains) with a good understanding of metadata standards, their usage and benefits could form the basis of the AC group.

Role of SB participants - discussion might be more fruitful under Purpose discussion

Then a couple of scientists with a different perspective (different domains?) could be invited to take part and serve a little different function?

Member roles - (this may be more usefully taken under Purpose)

Rather than changing the bylaws, the different member roles (Designated/Scientific) could be clarified in a guide or best practice document?

Purpose lists the duties and responsibilities of the SB. Organization outlines how the SB is formed/structured. Bottom line, what is the SB’s purpose and how should it be organized. If the current Purpose is not what the Alliance needs, or the current Organization does not allow for the SBs purpose to be successfully achieved, then either/both areas need to be amended. However, as I mentioned in the Purpose comments, I feel that the problem is recruiting more folks with the right mix of expertise into the SB. The ByLaws were re-written to address the governance and organization constraints identified in the Breckenhill Report. Its goal was to provide more governance of the Alliance and provide an organizational divsion of labor to grow the scientific/technical/DDI specification engagement of Member Organizations Associate Member Organizations, and others. Would re-organizing or clarifying the SB achieve this purpose? (If so, then I support it.)

	The Scientific Board shall be composed of Member and Associate Member Organization Designated Representatives and shall be staffed by the Secretariat.	The Executive Director is an ex-officio member, without vote, of the Scientific Board. The Executive Director is not eligible to serve as Chair or Vice-Chair.	At last one-third of the Members present at a meeting of the Scientific Board properly called by the Executive Director shall constitute a quorum.	The Executive Director may invite others to participate as Observers in activities and meetings of the Scientific Board.	Members of the Scientific Board shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair from among themselves for a term of three years. The Chair and Vice-Chair are eligible for re-election.	The Technical Committee will be established as a standing committee of the Scientific Board.	The Scientific Board may also form Sub-Committees and Working Groups on specific topics.	Other Comments
Summary	Split understanding of terms and roles	Agree	In principle agreement, unless smaller body	Agreement - caveat on voting rights of obervers	Agreed - caveat term of membership may need restriction	Split - view expressed that TC should be separately incorporated in By Laws	Split - view that sub groups may not need to be established by SB
Jon Johnson	Agree -	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree - add Chair and Vice-Chair should not serve for more than 2 terms	Agree	Agree	Composition should be a specified number, e.g. a maximun of 8 members, with representation from key areas to reflect membership, e.g. at least one from archive, research, NSO, for profit, non-OECD member
Wendy Thomas	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree - adding some term limits would be reasonable	Agree	Agree - I don’t think it should be a matter of approval by the SB or the Chair. If a group wants to form, has a mission, can relate their work to existing groups as noted in the development process they should be supported. If they need monetary support then it becomes an issue of broader SB support as well as EB support. People put in work where their interests lie.	I don’t necessarily agree wit the need for a “board” for the Scientific Board. The leadership of the Board should facilitate the work of the individual groups and the overall working of the scientific work of the alliance. A group of people elected uncontested by a small percentage of eligible voters means little. Having a small group consisting of Chair, Vice-chair, and some volunteers willing to do the support work (set up confluence/jira site, help with presence on DDI site, help frame requests for funding from EB, ensure communication between working groups, etc.) would be useful. Chair/Vice-chair should serve as intermediaries with the EB.
Ingo Barkow	It is important to clarify terms here - in the future we might have a “Scientific Assembly” (all the persons nominated from their home institutions) and a “Scientific Board” (something like the Executive Committee, limited number of people).	Agree	Agree	Agree	Scientific Board might be voted from the Scientific Assembly. The question is here how many persons does the new SB have.	Not necessarily - maybe it makes more sense to have TC as a separate entity.	Agree.
Jared Lyle	What is meant by “Member Designated Representatives”? Is this the same as the Designated Member Representatives who attend the annual meeting? Who votes? Can there be multiple? What does “staffed by the Secretariat” mean?	Agree	Agree, but when is a quorum needed? Only to vote?	Is this still needed? Can we open meetings to anyone, but only let members have voice and vote? We want to engage the community.	Term limits would be useful. 2) Which members of the Scientific Board vote to elect the leadership?	I’d like to better understand and define the relationship between the Scientific Board and the Technical Committee. How should the TC interact with the SB? How could the standing committee relationship be clarified?	Agree, but the process of forming sub-committees/working groups should be better defined. It’s currently pretty vague and I worry some new groups could get dropped or aren’t formed due to uncertainty here.
Nicolas Sauger	In my experience outsite of DDI, I would generally go for clearer distinciton between the annual meeting of members of the scientific board. If the scientific board makes proposal to be ratified by the assembly, all members do not have to be represented in the scientific board. And the status of associate members seems not that clear to me as well.	Agree	If the scientific board is a bit more reduced in size (with say a fixed size of 8 to 12 members designated/elected by the meeting of members, a higher quorum would be desirable. At least 1/2.	Agree	Agree (including term limits) At least one among the two should come from a Member of the DDI.	This is indeed not very clear from the point of view of a newcomer. In my simplistic view, we have either seprated SB and TC (in which case the TC has to be fully established and mandates clearly separated) or the TC is a kind ox “executive board” of the SB.	Agree	From what I got from the first discussions, I perceive the major challenges as actual participation to the SB. I would personnally go for a clearer view that the Annual meeting makes decisions on all important areas while the SB prepares these decisions all over the year. In that case, members organizations should have a formal vote in the annual meeting and also nominate (whatever the procedure) members of the SB as a mix of relevant specialists (both in terms of strategy, practical implementation, and users).
Joachim Wackerow	I think I don’t really understand the purpose of these columns. Most of them are already addressed by the current bylaws. The purpose of this temporary working group is not to make a general review of the bylaws. See the comment column.							The Acting Committee of the SB should be elected by the representatives of the members. A discussion point will be what are the representatives, voting member representatives (this is clearly defined) or scientific representatives (not so clear defined). Each elected member of the Acting Committee should have a vote. All possible ex-officio members or standing representatives of groups don’t have votes. The idea is that this committee has a specific role which should be not mixed with other roles (individuals or groups) in the DDI Alliance. The structure of the DDI Alliance should follow the separation of concerns. Otherwise there is always a risk of conflict of interests. The committee should have a size which enables effective work, like 5 or 7. It should be an odd number suitable for voting. The position of the committee to the SB as whole, the EB, and the working groups should be clearly defined. This should give the frame for a better work in the DDI Alliance.
Hilde Orten	See comments column.							Acting Committee of the SB: The mandate of the temporary working group is to provide a proposal for restructuring of the SB. The idea of an Acting Committee of the SB makes very much sense to me. We need to focus on the composition and size of the proposed AC group. In my view, experts (technical, or from different scientific domains) with a good understanding of metadata standards, their usage and benefits could form the basis of the AC group. Then a couple of scientists with a different perspective (different domains?) could be invited to take part and serve a little different function? Member roles: Rather than changing the bylaws, the different member roles (Designated/Scientific) could be clarified in a guide or best practice document?
Ron Nakao	Agree. My interpretation of Member Representatives vs Designated Member Representatives is DMRs are designated by the Member Organizations to vote. (non-Designated Member Representatives and Observers cannot vote.) Theoretically, there could be as many DMRs as there are actual votes to be cast, but only one per vote. Ideally, there would be at least two DMRs per Member Organization: one to vote on overall Alliance organizational governance issues (Annual Meeting, etc.), and one with the expertise/background to participate and vote on Scientific Board/DDI specification issues.	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	“Purpose” lists the duties and responsibilities of the SB. “Organization” outlines how the SB is formed/structured. Bottom line, what is the SB’s purpose and how should it be organized. If the current Purpose is not what the Alliance needs, or the current Organization does not allow for the SBs purpose to be successfully achieved, then either/both areas need to be amended. However, as I mentioned in the Purpose comments, I feel that the problem is recruiting more folks with the right mix of expertise into the SB. The ByLaws were re-written to address the governance and organization constraints identified in the Breckenhill Report. Its goal was to provide more governance of the Alliance and provide an organizational divsion of labor to grow the scientific/technical/DDI specification engagement of Member Organizations Associate Member Organizations, and others. Would re-organizing or clarifying the SB achieve this purpose? (If so, then I support it.)